So, if California can substitute a tax on farm owners to cover the cost of easements for organizers, what will the conservatives on the court gain from Cedar Point? South Carolina Coast Council decision. But that's very different from a general land use regulation as with the California union access regulation – which is why scholars like Penalver would note courts had generally avoided rulings like Cedar Point in the past. The best logic for takings compensation is where one landowner is treated differently from other similar landowners, as in some land use and environmental regulations that have been blocked by the courts, as in the Lucas v.
If it seems perverse that takings law could demand compensation for a landowner from the government, while government can then tax that same landowner to meet the compensation requirement, that contradiction has long been discussed. Years ago, legal scholar Eduardo Peñalver argued that "any regulation that can easily be translated into a permissible tax should not be deemed a taking in need of compensation" for this very reason. While California can probably not argue that union organizers being allowed periodically onto corporate farm property increases the value of the land, they can argue that it does not substantially diminish its value, so the compensation need not be large.Īnd even if court proceedings found that more substantial compensation was warranted, there is nothing in the Cedar Point finding that would prevent the state from assessing taxes on all farm operations to cover the costs of the compensation mandated by the courts. The state argued that the wiring actually increased the value of landlord property, so that was all they were owed. This compensation amount was ratified by lower courts.
LORETTO V TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP INSTALL
Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., which had struck down a New York regulation allowing companies to install cable wires over the objections of landlords. Unmentioned was that the state of New York responded to the Supreme Court ruling by continuing the regulations while compensating landlords going forward – to the tune of just $1 for each building wired for cable. Notably, Roberts cited an earlier case from the 1980s, Loretto v. In the case of the California union access regulations, given that the access was limited in both how often the union could access the property and where they could go, even the conservative justices implied the compensation required might not be that much in this case. Responding to the dissent making the case that such limited intrusions should not be considered a property rights violation, Roberts argued the limited time of the violation "bears only on the amount of compensation due." The key is in the wording of the Fifth Amendment, which says "or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Even if the court blocks property regulations under the Fifth Amendment, government can always purchase access to the property in question, what is known as an "easement" for temporary access by third parties.
However, there is a way for progressives to respond that even the right-wing court will find hard to strike down, namely using government's power of taxing and spending to reframe its regulations touching on property rights. The decision continues a march of conservative judicial decisions voiding local laws that restrict corporate power or protect workers rights in favor of "rights" for corporate interests. This could bring a wrecking ball to a wide range of existing laws, including rules requiring hospitals to take unwanted poor patients, laws requiring landlords to accept Section 8 tenants, and a wide swathe of other regulations governing who businesses must allow to access their property. Hassid decided this past Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a California regulation allowing union organizers access to corporate farms to inform farm workers of their rights under state labor law.Īrguing that the "right to exclude" is "a fundamental element of the property right," Chief Justice Roberts radically expanded the court's "takings" doctrine to cover almost any regulation giving third parties access to business property.
0 kommentar(er)
